Congressional Record
ABM TREATY WITHDRAWAL -- (Senate - December 14, 2001)
---
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to take just a few moments today to place President Bush's announcement that he is withdrawing the United States from the 1972 ABM Treaty into a broader context, to try and redefine a debate
about our security which too often has been argued at the margins. [Page: S13293] GPO's PDFThe undergirding objective behind any American foreign policy should be to make Americans safer, to make our position in the world more secure, not less. That is the only objective measurement of foreign policy, and it is by that measurement that I want to offer any construction concerns about today's announcement.
First, let me be clear: I support the development of an effective defense against ballistic missiles that it deployed with maximum transparency and consultation with U.S. allies and with other major powers, including Russia and China. I've voted as has the Senate, to support an approach which delivers that kind of security measure. In the end, it boils down to common sense: If there is a real potential of a rogue nation firing a few missiles at any city in the U.S., responsible leadership requires that we make our best, most thoughtful efforts to defend against that threat. The same is true of accidental launch. If it ever happened, no leader could ever explain not having chosen to defend against the disaster when doing so made sense.
The broader question we must ask today is what constitutes not just effective defense against the ballistic missile threat, but whether in its entirety we are pursuing a national security strategy which makes us as safe as we can be against the whole range of threats we face as a nation, and what should have been clear before September 11 and what is evident with frightening clarity today is that there are urgent and immediate vulnerabilities to our security which can and must be addressed, practically, pragmatically, today.
The President's announcement today reflects, I fear, misplaced priorities--an unyielding obsession almost with a threat which most measurements would suggest is of lesser likelihood, and an almost cavalier willingness to nickel and dime security priorities of the first order. I remain disappointed that the Bush Administration continues to focus so much on its attention on the issue of missile defense and a missile defense plan which will be enormously expensive while at the same time they cite expense as a reason why they will not today make the investment towards meeting our tremendous homeland security challenges.
Missile defense is important, but it is a response of last resort, when diplomacy and deterrence have failed. No missile defense system can be 100 percent effective, and so we would be remiss to discard entirely the logic of deterrence that has kept us safe for 40 years. Even in periods of intense animosity and tension, under the most unpredictable and isolated of regimes, political and military deterrence have a powerful, determining effect on a nation's decision to use force. We saw it at work in the Gulf War, when Saddam Hussein was deterred from using his weapons of mass destruction by the sure promise of a devastating response from the United States. For 30 years, the ABM Treaty has helped to anchor nuclear deterrence, and I believe that people of the world have been safer for it. Yes, I would have preferred that the Bush administration continue to work with Russia to find a way to amend, rather than end, the ABM Treaty. It appears that Russia was willing to allow the Bush administration great leeway in pursing its robust testing
plan for missile defense, but the President was unwilling to accept any restrictions on his plans. Given their past statements, it comes as no surprise that the Administration does not seem to have offered much to Russia by way of a compromise or an attempt to amend and preserve the Treaty. What the Administration has done, and it is their prerogative to do so, is gamble successfully on the fact that the Russian leadership would wisely determine not to allow this issue to derail the improvements we have seen in the last 3 months in the U.S.-Russian relationship. President Putin has called this decision on the ABM Treaty a mistake and expressed his regret that President Bush intends to go forward with this, but Putin and others in his administration have pledged that they will continue to work with us on reducing strategic nuclear arsenals and building a new Russian relationship with NATO. The response from Russia could have been much different, much more dangerous and destabilizing, and I believe it would have been, before the events of September 11 changed Russia's perception of the threats it faces and the importance of cooperating with the United States. But I am gratified that the Russians remain partners in a global effort to increase security.
The situation with China is more murky. While the administration has briefed the Chinese leadership on its missile defense plans, I don't believe enough time or diplomatic effort has been invested in convincing Beijing that this system is not directed at eroding China's small nuclear deterrent. The Administration must do more to reach a common understanding with China that there is a real threat from isolated regimes bent on terrorism and accidental or unauthorized launches. If we fail to take this task seriously, we will jeopardize stability in the Pacific.
But, in my judgment, what is more striking about the President's announcement today is the homeland security measures left unaddressed, and unfunded, in the Administration's security wish list.
In his statements about missile defense over the last several months, President Bush has said over and over that this is only one part of a comprehensive national security strategy. I could not agree more, but I am deeply concerned that the President's words are not matched by the deeds of his administration. Especially in the world after September 11, a comprehensive national security strategy must emphasize the things we need to do to keep the American people safe from terrorism. But just last week, the President defeated attempts by Democrats in the Senate to provide additional funding for homeland security as part of the Defense Department appropriations bills.
I am deeply concerned that, at a time when the Administration tells us that financial resources for defense are highly limited, we must be more prudent about our spending priorities, we need a debate about choices for our national security agenda.
Let's be clear about what every national security expert told us before September 11 and has amplified since. We need to fund our efforts to deliver airline and rail security, border security, the ability of our fire fighters, police and emergency workers to respond to terrorist attacks, and the ability of our health care system to respond to the threat we face from bio-terrorism. And we are at war. We need to ensure that our fighting men and women have the tools and support they need to prosecute this war on terrorism successfully. Finding an effective defense against missile
attacks is important, but these challenges are immediate, critical, and regrettably they are being left unmet today.
Pushing forth first and foremost with national missile defense does nothing to address what the Pentagon, even before September 11, considered a much more likely and immediate threat to the American homeland from terrorists and non-state actors, who might attack us with weapons of mass destruction. As we are learning more about Osama bin Ladin's attempts to possibly acquire nuclear weapons and develop chemical or biological weapons, it is crucial that we stay focused on meeting the WMD threat.
Our first defense against that threat is a robust international effort on non-proliferation. but the President's FY 2002 budget actually cut U.S. funding for counter-proliferation programs to deal with the huge weapons stockpiles of the former Soviet Union. Our former colleague, Senator Howard Baker, was part of a study of these counter-proliferation programs released earlier this year. That study concluded that the threat of proliferation from the weapons stockpiles of the former Soviet Union is very grave, and efforts to secure and destroy those weapons demand our immediate, robust support. The study recommended an increase of $30 million in funding for these programs, but supporters of these programs on both sides of the aisle have struggled mightily just to keep the funding from being slashed.
Consider also the homeland security needs so clearly being given short shrift in an agenda dominated by national missile defense. Our security needs are enormous, for certainly the
last months have at least demonstrated where some of the vulnerabilities lie. [Page: S13294] GPO's PDFWe must shore up not just the safety of our nuclear plants around the country, but plants and nuclear weapons facilities around the globe. From making nuclear facilities less vulnerable from the air, to investing in the trained personnel to ensure that cargo ships in American ports are not carrying dangerous or stolen nuclear materials meaningful steps can be taken to protect Americans against a threat which was real before September 11 and looms larger today.
The Administration can't speak about preparing to deal with bioterrorism, and in the next breath ignore that medicine must be stockpiled, that nurses and medical professionals must be trained, and that massive investments in vaccines for diseases long believed to have been eradicated must be made at a rapid pace.
We can't honor firefighters, police and rescue workers who died in the World Trade Center if we aren't willing to invest in the technology and innovation that make these jobs safer. There is little solace for postal workers killed by Anthrax if the government is not committed to putting in place innovative ways to detect and combat future biological and chemical threats.
Making our Nation's rail system safe will come with a high price tag, but it's trivial compared to the devastation that could be wrought by a single terrorist attack on passenger rail. More than 300,000 people pass through the century-old rail tunnels under New York City each day, tunnels lacking both ventilation and sufficient emergency exits. It is time to shore up the security of our transportation infrastructure before they become targets, not when it is too late.
These are security needs of a nation at war and a nation bent on returning to normalcy in the months and years ahead, and they must be addressed. I would say to you today, it's time we break out of a debate over whether we're going to have a missile defense system or rely entirely on deterrence, a fruitless debate, ideological shadow-boxing and end the days of arguing at the margins. We need a serious, thoughtful debate on the comprehensive steps required, in every issue of national security, to make our Nation as safe as it can be, and until we do that we are not offering the kind of leadership our citizens and our country demands of us. And that is a debate of the first order of urgency, a debate too important to delay.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed that the President has announced that the United States is withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The President is adamantly pursuing a unilateral approach at a time when we so clearly need international cooperation in the war against terrorism. We now know beyond dispute that we cannot simply withdraw within our border, with a magical shield to protect us. All our gold-plated weapons systems could not prevent the terrorist attack, and they can't hunt down every terrorist. Our national security depends on international intelligence, international law enforcement, international financial transactions, international aid, in short on our relations with other nations.
Yet for the first time since World War II we are walking away from a major treaty, dismaying our friends and inciting those who could become our enemies. While Russian President Putin has given a measured response, I fear our intransigence could endanger cooperation not only on terrorism in Asia but also on further reductions in nuclear arms. And China, whose much smaller missile arsenal is most directly threatened by our missile defense plans, will almost certainly build more missiles, making the world less safe.
For our close allies, abandoning what we used to call the ``cornerstone'' of arms control is just the latest in a series of provocations. Last week we torpedoed negotiations on the Biological Weapons Convention, having earlier axed a verification protocol, at a time when we face a biological weapon attack. Wouldn't a little verification of foreign labs that use anthrax be useful right now? We abandoned negotiations on the Kyoto global warming accord, gutted the small arms treaty, and walked away from the United Nations Conference on Racism. We rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and dismissed the convention on land mines. How can we expect full cooperation from other nations on terrorism, when we dismiss their concerns, refusing even to negotiate, on critical issues including biological weapons, nuclear arms control, and global warming?
Make no mistake, we have no technical need to withdraw from the ABM treaty at this time. Most experts agree that research and testing could continue for years without violating the present treaty. And the Russians have offered to amend the treaty if needed. Unfortunately, this administration refused to take yes for an answer. If we are to maintain international cooperation in defeating the terrorists, and also in protecting the global environment, ending child labor abuses and promoting human rights, and improving the global economy, we must ourselves show some regard for international norms and concerns. Friendship is not a one-way street. I hope we wake up to that fact before it is too late.
Source